Re: CCTS Issue with Models

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

i agree we need to keep our core component types  schema(s) compliant 
with the CCTS (and also the work Garrett is doing for OAG).

but i think we need a clearer understanding of the revised architecture 
before we make any chnages at this stage.  there still appears to be a 
lot of confusion in this area and we need to get all involved parties 
onto the same page.  judging from  garrett's comments, there has 
obviously been some breakdown in communication between the work that he, 
gunther and mark did and the rest of the tools and techniques group and 
the LCSC.  

specifically, we need Gunther and/or Garrett to  work with Chee-Kai on 
what are the definitive CoreComponentTypes/Rep Term/Data Type schemas. 
 what Garret is using varies considerably from what we have been doing 
to date. this then also impacts our models in terms of how our 
Representation Terms map to what XSD data types.  this is significant 
enough to wait until after our call on tuesday.

LCSC did not randomly choose to invent these things.  Some of these CCTs 
have been in since before 0p70 and were built by Gunther - who authored 
the CCTS paper for the Implementation Reveiw and worked with Garrett on 
his revised schema.  

finally, i was of the belief that we had the right to propose and create 
supplementary component types such as GUID.  the solution is not to take 
them out but work out how they should be implemented.



Bill Meadows wrote:

>Steve, Tim,
>  The following is an taken from todays (Fridays) QA minutes.  It describes
>the issue, and possible solution.  Does this seem like a good solution?
>If not any suggestions?  We need to make a decision and update the models 
>before Tuesday.
>
>  The CCTS:CCT types that crept in: GloballyUniqueId, Name, and
>ElectronicAddress, need to be dealt with.  These is an NDR rule that says we
>will be compliant with CCTS.  This issue needs to be dealt with before next
>Tuesday's call.
>
>*  Could we possibly move these types out of the CoreComponentType xsd file
>and into our reusable types?  I don't know if this would work, but it would
>keep our CCT pure to CCTS.
>
>
>Cheers,
>Bill
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>NOTICE:  This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
>information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
>distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended 
>recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
>all copies of the original message.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160